Ok, here is my dilemma:
While driving around with bluetooth, I play YouTube videos and just listen to the audio. A little while back, I was listening to one of the MANY Yaron Brook talks at a college campus. During the Q&A, some girl got called on, stood up, started beating a tambourine, and sang some first-person song/word poem about how native Americans were oppressed and enslaved, and yada yada, and Yaron just stands there for a couple minutes as she goes through her whole performance. When she finally stops singing, he responds with something to the effect of: "ok... so I'm not sure if there was a question there..."
And I laughed incredibly hard and almost crashed my car and died.
Anyway, the point of this anecdote is to try and find out what that video was. I never saw the screen, so I can't recognize any visuals, and when you look up Yaron and College, there are SO many to sift through, that I feel helpless. I was hoping perhaps someone else was familiar with this video and could provide a link.
With the recent interest on YouTube with SJW's and the whole "PC" movement, I thought that this interaction was especially hilarious. Can anyone help?

I know it's much later but I just saw this topic, so idk if OP will see this reply. As a self-employed plumber, I can say that I in no way feel "less important" than a CEO of a large scale company. I would say that I resonate deeper with Hank Rearden than I do with Eddie Willers.
This is because I don't equate my success with how much my business grosses each year, or how much I "contribute to society". I find great pride in my personal success and growth in itself, in relation to nothing at all. I have achieved great success through skill, dedication, and even character (A friendly, positive, and honest personality). My identifying with Rearden as opposed to Willers has nothing to do with Bank statements, it's all about viewpoint. I find pride in my ability and I know I do my job with 100% dedication. That's where the philosophy comes in. Its really not so much, what you do, but how you do it, and how you view it. I can't quote, but I recall Ayn Rand saying something to the effect of: even someone who just files papers for a living needs to use their brain and can find pride in it.
Would someone who handles millions of dollars a day consider my life and profession as "important" as theirs? I don't know... Should I care?

I enjoyed this poem on hitRECord, especially the part that goes: "Things matter, because well, they matter to you." Kind of a nice nod to self interest. I sometimes get a bit overwhelmed, and admittedly I occasionally have a bit of an existential crisis. But this was kind of a cool counter to feeling small in the universe.

Here is an article from the huffington post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-men-project/why-its-so-hard-to-talk-to-white-people-about-racism_b_7183710.html
There's a lot I don't like about this article, especially the part where "Dr. Diangelo" blames individualism as a CAUSE of racism:
"Whites are taught to see themselves as individuals, rather than as part of a racial group. Individualism enables us to deny that racism is structured into the fabric of society. This erases our history and hides the way in which wealth has accumulated over generations and benefits us, as a group, today. It also allows us to distance ourselves from the history and actions of our group. Thus we get very irate when we are "accused" of racism, because as individuals, we are "different" from other white people and expect to be seen as such; we find intolerable any suggestion that our behavior or perspectives are typical of our group as a whole."
Aside from that, she just makes a lot of conclusions, but provides no evidence for it, as if it is just an axiom. for example:
"Any white person living in the United States will develop opinions about race simply by swimming in the water of our culture"
"While individual whites may be against racism, they still benefit from the distribution of resources controlled by their group."
"white people have extremely low thresholds for enduring any discomfort associated with challenges to our racial worldviews"
" the whiter our schools and neighborhoods are, the more likely they are to be seen as 'good'"
"While one may explicitly reject the notion that one is inherently better than another, one cannot avoid internalizing the message of white superiority"
What are your thoughts on this? Considering she attacks whites for being defensive over this subject, and she tries to discredited the "individualism" argument, it seems like it's a trap to even engage someone over this.
Like, if you were to try to be defensive, or argue for individualism, a person could just say: "See?! You're doing exactly what she said you would do!"

I'm putting this in metaphysics because I know Peikoff said that changing one's gender is a "metaphysical assault on reality".
Does everyone here agree with this? Is it possible to determine that your psychology is actually a different gender than your anatomy? Can anyone prove that this is possible?
I know a couple people who claim that they are a different sex on the inside and they want to reflect that on the outside. What questions does this raise about male and female identity? If a man feels what he might describe as having a "feminine" brain, such as the desire to be submissive to men, would it be rational to want to then be a woman?
I tend to agree with Peikoff here, but those who experience this are quite adamant about it.
I also think it's a little strange to call for "equality", because wouldn't that mean that whether you were a man or a woman on the inside it wouldn't matter, since they are equal?

I have attempted to clarify a little more in the above post ^^
The frustrating part is not that such content exist. I love it and spent a lot of time watching it. But popcorn only keeps me full so long, and it feels like there is so very little steak out there.
Also, I don't mean to say they are physically living off of someone's creation. I'm just wondering if there is a bit of psychological second-handedness. Granted, the top streamers earn their viewership. Destiny is one of my very favorite streamers, and he often sparks philosophical conversations in chat.
I suppose this isn't the newest thing. There are hundreds of "dime novels" and only one "Atlas Shrugged". I guess I just would like to see more things that actually leave an impact of me, rather than just make me chuckle or smile for a minute and then forget about it the next day.

Great points Ludicious, thank you.
I am aware of the fact that the things I am mentioning are new content.
However, you assume that by me bringing this subject up that I dislike gaming streams and other things like reviewers, but I subscribe to many of them and have even given money to some live streamers.
I'm subscribed to Pewdiepie too, and I acknowledge that he can be entertaining. I'm not contesting the fact that anyone can watch whatever they want, and in reality, I watch a lot of the stuff I'm "complaining" about in my OP. But I still maintain that there is something to this notion of popular entertainment being not original.
Once again, I'm not whining about videos I don't like. I'm not saying: "I don't like this, so it sucks!"
But even the example you posted contains what is in my opinion, something of a "parasitic" or "second-handed" vibe. I'm subscribed to ERB, and I have Weird Al to thank for giving me a sense of humor far beyond what my peers had when I was in grade school. But despite the brilliance of those videos, and the intense work that goes into creating that content, They're still playing with existing characters. (The Keynes Hayek rap beats anything on ERB in my opinion, but like you said that's just preference).
Again let me emphasize, I do NOT hate these content creators, I'm just questioning how much they earn that title compared to someone who directs a film crew, or even uses little to no budget to create a short film on youtube.
Even amazing creators like FreddieW, who makes fantastic videos using choreography and special effects is ultimately parodying an existing genre. I love it, but at the end of the day, after watching all these dynamic personalities, or skillful lyricists, or hard working video creators, I still feel this unfilled void. Something lacking, even though I may have spent hours watching "new content."
Like this intense desire for a new IDEA, where all I find, when I really analyze it, is recycled material. It leaves me feeling unsatisfied.
(I would almost leave music out of the conversation. I think there's a lot happening online with music creation, and people reaching a niche audience like was never possible before in history. I was primarily thinking of other types of videos)

As the internet becomes used more as people's means of entertainment, it seems to me that a certain breed of "content creators" are the most popular. Perhaps you disagree and can show me statistics that show I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the websites and/or online videos that get the most views are not so much "creating" content, but attaining their viewership by making videos based on content that someone else created.
By this I mean that it seems to me that the most popular "content creators" are critics, reviewers, game-streamers etc. The current highest paid YouTuber doesn't really "create" anything. He simply plays games that other people have created. And it's theorized that he makes potentially at least 3 million dollars a year. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, after all I'm sure the game creators are happy that millions of potential customers are exposed to their game. But does this say anything about the viewers psychology?
In addition to the enormous growth of game-streamers, some of the other most popular YouTube videos include things like "Honest Trailers", and "Kids React to...". The reaction videos especially perplex me. They make a video by recording people watching another video, and very rarely do the subjects they record have ANYTHING interesting to say, or entertaining to offer. In fact, usually they just exclaim things like: "Wow what is this?!" or "Hey I like this!". And that gets MILLIONS of views.
Meanwhile, if a person takes time to make an internet video with creativity, a storyline, original content, or for educational purposes (besides VSauce), they are lucky to get thousands of views.
Do you think this means anything? Is this nothing new? After all, "reality TV" has been around for almost two decades and is still popular. (In fact that also has a branch in the internet with daily life Vlogs)
This is just something that has been bothering me for a while and I wanted to express it. I've attempted bringing it up at a few dinner conversations, and most people don't really care.
If there is nothing substantial to this, does anyone else at least feel the same frustration as I do? Am I crazy, or is there an incredible amount people making money by living off someone else's content?

I'm excited to see everyone's love for audio books. I just finished AS for the second time. Listening to a book is great! Often times a line is read differently (better) than how I imagined it.
My job isn't driving, but I drive all day doing service calls, so I too spend a lot of time behind the wheel.
Oh, and welcome to the forum!

let me just say that I still love the music I listened to in my angry high school years.
Even all of the screamo, all of the deterministic lyrics, all of the hatred of the "good".
If I pop in an AFI album I will be rocking out pretty hardcore, even though most of those lyrics are about death and how ugly we are inside and blah blah blah.
At the time I thought I was very cool for listening to music which echoed my deep internal flaws, and the imperfection none of us can escape .
I don't view the universe or myself the same as I did back then... but I'll be damned if Davey Havok's screaming in "Death of Seasons" still isn't the most bad-ass things ever!
(Side note. I agree with you that the SAW movies are a masterpiece, if that is in fact what you were implying)
EDIT (Second side note: I've also played the original Bioshock 6 times. I'll take a ridiculous and ignorant attack on Ayn Rand that has an intruiging story over HALO any day)

I recently watched the film "blackfish", which I found to be full of anecdotal evidence as opposed to facts and statistics, and riddled with biased conjecture. However it did spark quite a chasmed discussion with the people I was with.
I am all for capturing animals for human enjoyment. I enjoy the zoo and seaworld here in San Diego. My question is: barring deliberately cruel treatment of animals (i.e. physically hurting them), are there any concerns one should have morally with containing animals?
It seemed to me that the primary thrust of the movie's message was that the animals "belong" in the wild, and taking them out of nature makes them sad or angry....
This doesn't really convinced me of much. It seems that with an unlimited supply of food, a lack of predators, and generally a longer life than that of wild animals, these contained animals wouldn't have much to complain about if they could voice complaint. What do you think?
Oh, in regards to my topic title, orcas' dorsals fins sag in captivity, basically because they don't need to use it. This was supposed to make the viewer feel some kind of anger toward the captors, but in my opinion, if they no longer need to use the dorsal fin because they are safe in captivity, why does it matter if they can't use it?